The Pulse of Higher Ed

By Vickie S. Cook, Ph.D.

Leadership is not defined only by the circumstances we encounter, but also by how we learn from them and determine what comes next. 

Higher education leaders often accept positions because they believe in an institution’s mission and see opportunities to make a meaningful difference. They bring experience, professional judgment, and a commitment to supporting students, faculty, staff, and institutional success. Yet even capable, experienced leaders sometimes find themselves working in environments where their responsibilities exceed their authority, their expertise is overlooked, or the resources needed to achieve expected outcomes are beyond their control. 

These circumstances are particularly challenging for mid-level and senior leaders who supervise personnel, manage budgets, and advise executive leadership while relying primarily on influence to accomplish work across the institution. 

Over time, the challenges can become more than operational frustrations. Leaders may begin to question their effectiveness, their professional judgment, or even their ability to succeed in another leadership role. 

A difficult institutional experience, however, need not become the defining story of a leader’s career. 

The challenge is learning to recognize what can be changed, what must be navigated, and what may ultimately be beyond an individual’s influence. 

When Responsibility Exceeds Influence 

Online and Professional Continuing Education leadership frequently requires working across organizational boundaries. Academic programs, enrollment operations, instructional technology, faculty development, student support, and financial decisions are interconnected, but authority over these functions is often distributed across different units. 

Successful leaders learn to build relationships, establish credibility, and influence decisions without directly supervising everyone involved. 

That is an important leadership capability. But influence has limitations. 

Consider a senior director responsible for online learning, instructional technology, and faculty development who is excluded from institutional conversations about adopting artificial intelligence in graduate online programs. The director may ultimately be responsible for supporting implementation, preparing faculty, or addressing instructional quality concerns without having participated in the decisions shaping that work. 

Executive leaders may view restricted participation as necessary for confidentiality or efficient decision-making. Yet excluding relevant expertise can unintentionally weaken institutional decisions and leave capable leaders feeling that their professional contributions are neither valued nor respected. 

Professional disrespect, exclusion from decision-making, bullying, and institutional dysfunction are not identical experiences. They can, however, overlap and create barriers that diminish a leader’s opportunity to contribute. 

The issue is not simply whether an individual has a seat at every table. It is whether the institution creates reasonable opportunities for leaders to exercise the expertise and responsibilities entrusted to them. 

When Institutional Challenges Become Personal 

One of the more difficult consequences of working in a challenging environment is the gradual erosion of professional confidence. 

A leader who has demonstrated sound judgment, developed successful programs, managed complex operations, and supported institutional priorities may begin questioning those accomplishments when repeatedly confronted with exclusion or dismissive treatment. 

Conversations about these experiences often begin with disappointment or frustration about colleagues, supervisors, or institutional decisions. Beneath those emotions, however, there may be a more troubling question: Am I still the capable leader I believed myself to be? 

Research on workplace demands and resources helps explain why these experiences matter. When expectations remain high but organizational support, autonomy, and resources are insufficient, sustained workplace pressures can affect employee well-being and engagement. 

This distinction is important. Leaders should reflect honestly on their own practices, relationships, and decisions. They should also recognize that institutional barriers are not necessarily evidence of personal inadequacy. 

An unsuccessful effort to influence a decision does not erase years of demonstrated leadership capability. Nor does an institution’s unwillingness to consider a leader’s expertise necessarily diminish the value of that expertise. 

The challenge is separating the conditions in which leadership occurs from the capabilities the individual brings to the work. 

Recognizing What Can Change and What Cannot 

Not every difficult institutional environment requires a departure. 

Many experienced leaders spend years working across organizational boundaries, building relationships, and advancing institutional priorities without having direct authority over everyone involved. Influence, credibility, persistence, and an understanding of institutional culture can create opportunities for meaningful progress even under challenging circumstances. 

There are times when staying and continuing to build those relationships requires greater courage and patience than leaving. There are also circumstances in which a leader recognizes that the conditions necessary to contribute effectively are unlikely to change. 

Neither decision, by itself, defines leadership success. 

What matters is the judgment exercised in determining whether a meaningful path forward remains possible. 

For leaders who want to remain at their institutions, this may mean reconsidering how relationships are developed, identifying additional partners, clarifying decision-making responsibilities, or engaging executive leadership in conversations about the resources and authority necessary to meet expectations. 

It may also require recognizing that not every institutional disagreement represents disrespect and that productive leadership sometimes involves accepting decisions with which we disagree. 

At the same time, leaders should not be expected to compensate indefinitely for organizational conditions that prevent them from fulfilling their responsibilities. 

Leadership development involves learning the difference between a difficult situation that can be improved through persistence and collaboration and one in which meaningful progress remains consistently out of reach. 

When Leaving Is a Leadership Decision 

Some leaders recognize within the first few years of an appointment that the institution is not the professional environment they had anticipated. 

They may have accepted the position because they believed in the institution’s mission and saw opportunities to make a meaningful contribution. Yet they discover that their responsibilities are not matched by the authority, resources, or collaborative relationships necessary to achieve expected outcomes. 

When these leaders choose to leave, the decision is not always about career advancement. Sometimes it is about finding an institution where their experience, judgment, and leadership can contribute to meaningful progress. 

Recognizing that a professional environment is not the right fit, and acting on that recognition, can itself be an expression of leadership judgment. 

For others, the decision to remain reflects a commitment to institutional relationships, opportunities for change, or work that continues to provide professional meaning. 

There is no universal timetable for making these decisions. A relatively short tenure does not automatically indicate a poor institutional fit, just as a long tenure does not necessarily indicate professional satisfaction. 

The more important consideration is whether the leader has a realistic opportunity to contribute effectively and continue developing professionally. 

Moving Forward Without Allowing the Past to Define the Future 

Whether a leader remains at an institution or moves elsewhere, difficult professional experiences can leave a lasting impression. 

Anger, disappointment, and frustration may be understandable responses, particularly when individuals believe their contributions were overlooked or their professional judgment was dismissed. 

Acknowledging those experiences matters. But continually revisiting the decisions or behaviors of former colleagues and supervisors may eventually limit the attention available for one’s own future. 

Moving forward does not require excusing inappropriate behavior, abandoning legitimate concerns, or pretending that difficult experiences had no consequences. It means determining what can be learned from those experiences without allowing them to become the primary measure of professional identity. 

Leaders might begin by revisiting the accomplishments, relationships, and contributions that reflect their capabilities. They can consider which approaches were effective, which might be strengthened, and what they have learned about the organizational conditions in which they lead most successfully. 

They may also discover that the next meaningful professional chapter does not require a more prestigious title or another traditional administrative appointment. 

A comparable position at a different institution, a new area of higher education, teaching, consulting, mentoring, or work outside higher education may provide opportunities to contribute in different and equally meaningful ways. 

Professional growth is not always upward movement. Sometimes it is the ability to recognize where our experience and capabilities can make the greatest difference. 

The circumstances in which we have been expected to lead are not necessarily a measure of our capacity to lead. 

A difficult institutional experience may become an important chapter in a leadership career, but it does not have to become its defining story. What matters is how we use what we have learned to make thoughtful decisions about where and how we will contribute next. 

Questions for Leadership Reflection 

1. What have my experiences taught me about the kind of leader I want to be, rather than simply the kind of leadership I want to avoid? 

1. What can I influence or change in my current environment, and what conditions might require me to consider a different professional path? 

1. How can I use what I have learned to make my next chapter more purposeful, rather than allowing a difficult experience to define my professional future? 

Resources: 

Coates, T. L (2024). Academic abuse: A conceptual framework of the dimensions of toxic culture in higher education and the impact on the meaning of work 

Hodgins, M. Kane, R. Itzkovish, Y., Fahie, D. (2024). Workplace bullying and harassment in higher education institutions: A scoping review 

Tummers, L.G., Bakker, A.B. (2021). Leadership and job demands-resources theory: A systematic review 

Wilding, M. (2022).  How to recover from a toxic job.